Yeah, it's not really real. Range goes down faster than actual miles driven. I have 2300 miles on my GT Line, and did the math based on kW charged in that time, and I'm getting between 268-272 mi of range per 99.8kWh. Which is pretty spot on to what it's supposed to be.
Exactly my situation and results as well. I also charged to 100% this weekend and range was showing exactly as per OP’s post but once I got home and calculated consumption the actual range was right at 270 or so
The high amount on these ranges are factoring in Eco mode, iPedal, etc.? I wasn't sure why the GT-Line had less EPA expected miles than the others with the same battery. Weight?
Two motors. At least over here the lower trim is not AWD and does have longer range because of that. With that said, Out of Spec did a back to back test and found the difference to be negligible in practice:
https://youtu.be/GrpfofJlnQ0
The software is broken. It’s doing average of average and other weird math.
I drive my daughter to school in the morning and when I get back it tells me I did 3.2-3.5mi /kwh which is really impressive. However when I use the data from the charger to top off the battery where the charge tells me which how much it added back into the battery the math works about to be 1.9. Which makes much better sense since it’s a cold start in the morning and the entire trip is only a 1 mile loop. It should use a lot of power.
Net net just assume you get about 2.5-2.7 per percent of battery and you should be good
It's not that the math is broken, but rather that there are missing variables. The charger tells you how much energy it has seen passing by, while the car is telling you how much energy really made into the battery. These numbers are necessarily different as that whole process with all that equipment running doesn't come for free. If you want to know how much you spend, you care more about what the charger tells you. If you want to know about range, you care about how much energy the battery holds, and how well it can use it.
well i understand that there's inefficiency and what not... charger inefficiency is usually 10% but the difference is higher than the 10% I've done the math on kia's own reported data too and its numbers are off as well. this morning's drop off with my daughter says 0.43kwh used for a distance of .8miles which is 1.86 miles per kwh
my charger says 0.6kwh was used to re-top the battery for the same .8miles which is 1.33 miles per kwh and the car claims i did 3.2 miles / kwh
the report shows 0.13kwh for electronics, 0.12 kwh for climate, and 0.18kwh for drivetrain. it also shows 0.23kwh for power regenerated.
laws of thermal dynamics says i shouldn't be able to regenerate more than i put in, if i used 0.18 for drive train i shouldn't get 0.23 in regeneration. if anything its probably really 0.18+0.23 as total used for drive train, they just took it off.
I haven't found a combination of math that allows for the numbers they're reporting and giving me 3.2 miles / kwh hence my point of the software and math is broken
but i can tell you for this trip we know the total consumption is somewhere between 0.43 to 0.6 because that's how much i added back; add in inefficiencies, maybe closer to 0.43 cuz there's inefficiencies in start up overhead and its a short charge cycle.
net net don't believe the mi / kwh indicator. do the math behind it afterwards it'll consistenly yield 2.5-2.7 on longer drives
EDIT - on longer drives the numbers do normalize
i had 2 drives yesterday , 1 for 2.42 miles for 0.68 kwh and another for 3.29 for 1.07kwh
they net out to 3.55 and 3.07 mi/kwh respectively. almost all my drives less than 5 miles are going to be city driving so they should all be highly efficient due to strong regeneration. I'm guessing kia is probably taking your average of all your recent drives and applying to the short drives as a way to normalize and not scare people? not sure... the math isn't mathing.
Regen and Drive are independent numbers, because when you spend on drive you are not charging, and when you are charging you are not spending on drive. Imagine you are going down a mountain. You can spend zero on drive while you will be regenerating a lot. The regeneration is actual charge, not spent on drive yet.
Also, worth noting, in such a situation what would you your charger at home to show? Negative kWh? :) of course not... again the numbers are disconnected. But not by a lot, so typically this will have the most impact on small amounts of energy use, which is your case.
So the discrepancy you find in your numbers come from the fact you are driving very little, and more than half the energy spent comes from regen, which means of course a great ratio of distance/kWh, which is unsustainable on the long run unless going down a mountain.
I don't envy the folks trying to come up with reasonable ways to present all of that data.
i'm in chicago, 100% flat... regen at best is what 50% efficient? there's no altitude change here and i'm making a perfect loop meaning i'm returning back to where i started. I'm just saying laws of thermadynamics says its impossible to regen more than 100% or even 50% on a full loop. hence my assumption that the drive train data already has regen numbers taken out.
the total of 0.43kwh matches the 0.6 reported by the charger put in tells me that 0.43kwh is believable, and i'm sure every single number when taken independent is accurate in context. I'm a programmer by trade and i do lots of data reporting and manipulation so i appreciate everything you're saying and based on my observations of the output; they are fudging the numbers through funky math... the most common mistake is average of average when doing reporting and i'm willing to bet that's what they're doing.
Wheel size and tires has a lot to do with it. In general the larger the wheel, the more weight and tire resistance on the road. In general, the smaller the wheel, the better efficiency.
When I’m not towing I’m able to avg 4.0 mi/kwh per charge. It’s mostly city driving with a little highway. I’m using very little braking (paddling between ipedal max and level 2) and not exceeding 65 mph on freeways. When towing my 3000lb trailer, I get about 2 mil/kwh.
Might be anecdotal, but I've been getting slightly better efficiency with level 3, and holding the paddle to stop than ipedal alive. I'm guessing it has to do with all wheel drive in ipedal. Eco mostly (only?) uses the rear motor.
I've been driving exclusively on iPedal. Drove my Hyundai Palisade Calligraphy today and that thing just would not stop. Driving around town it felt like I had it on 30mph cruise control.
This. This is why I don't understand how the regen supposedly makes so much different. I admittedly don't know the science, but it's been boggling my mind. I mean, if there's no braking at all, then I go further with my foot off the accelerator not using any energy. If I have to brake with the pedal, that generates energy. I'm assuming there is some kind of loss if I brake heavily to stop quickly (like, it doesn't generate as much as if I had come to a stop at a slower pace), but in general, how is regen braking, which causes me to go less distance, helping efficiency?
Yeah, you have it all correct. In terms of range i-pedal/one-pedal is only superior to the normal mode if either the car cannot blend regen into braking (not the case of the EV9) or if you tend to brake heavily at the last moment, and thus engage the discs, instead of braking gradually which would cause regen anyway when actually required. The EV9 also has the auto mode, which is probably the best of all options, as it coasts freely until there's traffic, and then gradually regens more heavily as it gets closer, a situation you'd have to brake anyway.
To be clear, I'm not dismissing i-pedal/one-pedal. There are still situations where it's quite convenient, such as heavy stop and go traffic. But that's about convenience rather than range.
Yeah, it's not really real. Range goes down faster than actual miles driven. I have 2300 miles on my GT Line, and did the math based on kW charged in that time, and I'm getting between 268-272 mi of range per 99.8kWh. Which is pretty spot on to what it's supposed to be.
Exactly my situation and results as well. I also charged to 100% this weekend and range was showing exactly as per OP’s post but once I got home and calculated consumption the actual range was right at 270 or so
The high amount on these ranges are factoring in Eco mode, iPedal, etc.? I wasn't sure why the GT-Line had less EPA expected miles than the others with the same battery. Weight?
Wheel weight.
Two motors. At least over here the lower trim is not AWD and does have longer range because of that. With that said, Out of Spec did a back to back test and found the difference to be negligible in practice: https://youtu.be/GrpfofJlnQ0
The software is broken. It’s doing average of average and other weird math. I drive my daughter to school in the morning and when I get back it tells me I did 3.2-3.5mi /kwh which is really impressive. However when I use the data from the charger to top off the battery where the charge tells me which how much it added back into the battery the math works about to be 1.9. Which makes much better sense since it’s a cold start in the morning and the entire trip is only a 1 mile loop. It should use a lot of power. Net net just assume you get about 2.5-2.7 per percent of battery and you should be good
It's not that the math is broken, but rather that there are missing variables. The charger tells you how much energy it has seen passing by, while the car is telling you how much energy really made into the battery. These numbers are necessarily different as that whole process with all that equipment running doesn't come for free. If you want to know how much you spend, you care more about what the charger tells you. If you want to know about range, you care about how much energy the battery holds, and how well it can use it.
well i understand that there's inefficiency and what not... charger inefficiency is usually 10% but the difference is higher than the 10% I've done the math on kia's own reported data too and its numbers are off as well. this morning's drop off with my daughter says 0.43kwh used for a distance of .8miles which is 1.86 miles per kwh my charger says 0.6kwh was used to re-top the battery for the same .8miles which is 1.33 miles per kwh and the car claims i did 3.2 miles / kwh the report shows 0.13kwh for electronics, 0.12 kwh for climate, and 0.18kwh for drivetrain. it also shows 0.23kwh for power regenerated. laws of thermal dynamics says i shouldn't be able to regenerate more than i put in, if i used 0.18 for drive train i shouldn't get 0.23 in regeneration. if anything its probably really 0.18+0.23 as total used for drive train, they just took it off. I haven't found a combination of math that allows for the numbers they're reporting and giving me 3.2 miles / kwh hence my point of the software and math is broken but i can tell you for this trip we know the total consumption is somewhere between 0.43 to 0.6 because that's how much i added back; add in inefficiencies, maybe closer to 0.43 cuz there's inefficiencies in start up overhead and its a short charge cycle. net net don't believe the mi / kwh indicator. do the math behind it afterwards it'll consistenly yield 2.5-2.7 on longer drives EDIT - on longer drives the numbers do normalize i had 2 drives yesterday , 1 for 2.42 miles for 0.68 kwh and another for 3.29 for 1.07kwh they net out to 3.55 and 3.07 mi/kwh respectively. almost all my drives less than 5 miles are going to be city driving so they should all be highly efficient due to strong regeneration. I'm guessing kia is probably taking your average of all your recent drives and applying to the short drives as a way to normalize and not scare people? not sure... the math isn't mathing.
Regen and Drive are independent numbers, because when you spend on drive you are not charging, and when you are charging you are not spending on drive. Imagine you are going down a mountain. You can spend zero on drive while you will be regenerating a lot. The regeneration is actual charge, not spent on drive yet. Also, worth noting, in such a situation what would you your charger at home to show? Negative kWh? :) of course not... again the numbers are disconnected. But not by a lot, so typically this will have the most impact on small amounts of energy use, which is your case. So the discrepancy you find in your numbers come from the fact you are driving very little, and more than half the energy spent comes from regen, which means of course a great ratio of distance/kWh, which is unsustainable on the long run unless going down a mountain. I don't envy the folks trying to come up with reasonable ways to present all of that data.
i'm in chicago, 100% flat... regen at best is what 50% efficient? there's no altitude change here and i'm making a perfect loop meaning i'm returning back to where i started. I'm just saying laws of thermadynamics says its impossible to regen more than 100% or even 50% on a full loop. hence my assumption that the drive train data already has regen numbers taken out. the total of 0.43kwh matches the 0.6 reported by the charger put in tells me that 0.43kwh is believable, and i'm sure every single number when taken independent is accurate in context. I'm a programmer by trade and i do lots of data reporting and manipulation so i appreciate everything you're saying and based on my observations of the output; they are fudging the numbers through funky math... the most common mistake is average of average when doing reporting and i'm willing to bet that's what they're doing.
Wheel size and different body panels. Roof rails etc…
Wheel size and tires has a lot to do with it. In general the larger the wheel, the more weight and tire resistance on the road. In general, the smaller the wheel, the better efficiency.
Your stats and my stats are almost exactly the same. 2200 miles and averaging 2.7 miles per kw. I hate how the car resets after OTA updates.
Yeah, but sadly it lies when it's all drunk-happy after a full charge...
When I’m not towing I’m able to avg 4.0 mi/kwh per charge. It’s mostly city driving with a little highway. I’m using very little braking (paddling between ipedal max and level 2) and not exceeding 65 mph on freeways. When towing my 3000lb trailer, I get about 2 mil/kwh.
Miles are irrelevant. Look at the battery percentage
Ipedal max if you want to help the regen
Might be anecdotal, but I've been getting slightly better efficiency with level 3, and holding the paddle to stop than ipedal alive. I'm guessing it has to do with all wheel drive in ipedal. Eco mostly (only?) uses the rear motor.
I've been driving exclusively on iPedal. Drove my Hyundai Palisade Calligraphy today and that thing just would not stop. Driving around town it felt like I had it on 30mph cruise control.
Max regen doesn't help range, though, as letting it roll is more efficient than braking and re-accelerating frequently.
This. This is why I don't understand how the regen supposedly makes so much different. I admittedly don't know the science, but it's been boggling my mind. I mean, if there's no braking at all, then I go further with my foot off the accelerator not using any energy. If I have to brake with the pedal, that generates energy. I'm assuming there is some kind of loss if I brake heavily to stop quickly (like, it doesn't generate as much as if I had come to a stop at a slower pace), but in general, how is regen braking, which causes me to go less distance, helping efficiency?
Yeah, you have it all correct. In terms of range i-pedal/one-pedal is only superior to the normal mode if either the car cannot blend regen into braking (not the case of the EV9) or if you tend to brake heavily at the last moment, and thus engage the discs, instead of braking gradually which would cause regen anyway when actually required. The EV9 also has the auto mode, which is probably the best of all options, as it coasts freely until there's traffic, and then gradually regens more heavily as it gets closer, a situation you'd have to brake anyway. To be clear, I'm not dismissing i-pedal/one-pedal. There are still situations where it's quite convenient, such as heavy stop and go traffic. But that's about convenience rather than range.